Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: May 6, 2005
7.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 357 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
270
Mixed:
55
Negative:
32
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
IvorS.May 7, 2005
Highly disappointing, bad casting. Definitely Ridley Scott's worst film till date.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
jackbMay 9, 2005
Perhaps not the worst of the recent medieval epics (that would be Troy), but it once again demonstrates the inverse relationship between the quality of a movie and the amount of money that gets spent to make it. Orlando Bloom completely Perhaps not the worst of the recent medieval epics (that would be Troy), but it once again demonstrates the inverse relationship between the quality of a movie and the amount of money that gets spent to make it. Orlando Bloom completely lacks screen presence, and the plot (such as it is) is dull as ditchwater. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AsadQ.Jul 1, 2006
Lightweight plot, the absence of dialogue, and an emotionless protagonist made this one movie I had to turn off before finishing. Too bad - it's a subject I would have enjoyed seeing brought to life on the screen.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
SeamusMay 5, 2005
Mediocrity defined. Bloom is critically miscast; he's incapable of delivering leading man heroism or of expressing emotion convincingly. The first hour is also murderously dull, yet somehow skimps on character development -- Who are Mediocrity defined. Bloom is critically miscast; he's incapable of delivering leading man heroism or of expressing emotion convincingly. The first hour is also murderously dull, yet somehow skimps on character development -- Who are these people? Why should we care about them? The big defend-the-castle battles were done before in "Lord of the Rings," "Troy," and a dozen other movies of the past decade. It's time for something new. Perhaps most infuriatingly is the morality of the movie. The pro-war Christians are the conniving, scheming, and brutal villiains of the movie, but the pro-war Muslims are honorable and pious. It's a political statement for our times, but why warp a real war to make it? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GaborA.May 7, 2005
Less than mediocre effort. Dramatic scenes evoke chuckles not tears. Story is non existant. Characters minus two are static and boring. Relatively true to the history but not to any standards of what a good movie is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BoBMay 10, 2005
Wow jack b, Troy is not Medieval. It's ANCIENT GREECE genius! The nobles were not nearly as noble as the movie portrays them to be, and the Crusaders were no nearly as evil. Sure, there were many people who were in the Crusades for the Wow jack b, Troy is not Medieval. It's ANCIENT GREECE genius! The nobles were not nearly as noble as the movie portrays them to be, and the Crusaders were no nearly as evil. Sure, there were many people who were in the Crusades for the wrong reasons, but they had good intentions. The Muslims had taken over half of Christendom, Europe had now choice but to retaliate, or they would be destroyed by the Muslims. The ignorance of some of these reviewers is astounding. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TelyS.May 6, 2005
How do you create a politically correct version of the Crusades? By lying.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JacoboMay 14, 2005
Great battle sequences. Everything else is pretty much mediocre. The connect-the-dots plot is dull. The performances are flat, and the characters have utterly no chemistry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LarryS.May 6, 2005
I don't know about the "political statement" this movie is implying according to some, but i personally hope all christians and muslims die, so i just wish someone would've dropped a huge atomic bomb on all of them while i was I don't know about the "political statement" this movie is implying according to some, but i personally hope all christians and muslims die, so i just wish someone would've dropped a huge atomic bomb on all of them while i was watching this boring movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JonFOct 16, 2005
Disjointed and incoherent. Their is not enough time devoted to develop the characters. Furthermore, some of the battle scenes seem intent on showing violence by have blood spew across the screen. The problem, it looks just plain silly. I Disjointed and incoherent. Their is not enough time devoted to develop the characters. Furthermore, some of the battle scenes seem intent on showing violence by have blood spew across the screen. The problem, it looks just plain silly. I really think this should have been two movies to give time to develop characters, or it just shouldn't have been made at all. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
RaschidA.Dec 7, 2005
Other than Saladdin and his army the rest of the movie is another Hollywood piece of crap. The History Channel did a much better job telling this story. It also has better actors.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
jimc.May 18, 2005
Here's a blockbuster that made me think all the time: is it worst than Alexander? is Scott's history teacher the same guy that teaches religion to Mel Gibson? Why can't Eva Green lift my spirits? Will Armaggedon come soon and Here's a blockbuster that made me think all the time: is it worst than Alexander? is Scott's history teacher the same guy that teaches religion to Mel Gibson? Why can't Eva Green lift my spirits? Will Armaggedon come soon and blow the whole thing up? Does getting bored stiff make you live longer? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BarbN.May 5, 2005
What an over-produced, self-important bore.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JeremeyM.May 7, 2005
This was such a horrible painful experience I walked out with 45 minutes left. For a movie about the crusades and religious predjudice it falls horribly short. Is completely unblanaced and lacks cohesive timing. The 'deep meaning' This was such a horrible painful experience I walked out with 45 minutes left. For a movie about the crusades and religious predjudice it falls horribly short. Is completely unblanaced and lacks cohesive timing. The 'deep meaning' in this movie would probably only resonate with those who are so hollow in the mind they can't handle the true history of what happened on an even itellectual level. And god forbid we show the Christian army getting slaughtered! Oh that would just be so horrible. But hey, when you can't handle history you can always just walk aroundit. Do yourself a favour, take a two and a half hour nap instead. It's the same effect Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MattM.May 7, 2005
This movie was a piece of crap!!!! gladiator is my favorite movie of all time, and this is the exact opposite. The movie put me to sleep, and it was ridiculous the circumstances and turning points were coincidental and had zero subtext orThis movie was a piece of crap!!!! gladiator is my favorite movie of all time, and this is the exact opposite. The movie put me to sleep, and it was ridiculous the circumstances and turning points were coincidental and had zero subtext or emotional investment. This movie made Alexander look like the godfather. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ryancarroll88Aug 27, 2010
Ridley Scott tries to rehash the same grandiose style that did him well in 'Gladiator' for the pitiful 'Kingdom of Heaven' but the terrible script/screenplay leaves no room for the viewer to have any interest in either the surplus battleRidley Scott tries to rehash the same grandiose style that did him well in 'Gladiator' for the pitiful 'Kingdom of Heaven' but the terrible script/screenplay leaves no room for the viewer to have any interest in either the surplus battle scenes, the undeveloped characters, or the nonexistent plot. And as far as acting goes, Orlando Bloom is to Russell Crowe as Shia LaBeouf is to Harrison Ford. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
JonathonJ.May 6, 2005
I hate this movie almost as much as i hate george w. bush, dick cheney, tom ridge, zell miller, john kerry, ted kennedy, bill clinton, jesus, ralph nader, david letterman, bea arthur, conan o'brian, frank sinatra, michael jordan, jimi I hate this movie almost as much as i hate george w. bush, dick cheney, tom ridge, zell miller, john kerry, ted kennedy, bill clinton, jesus, ralph nader, david letterman, bea arthur, conan o'brian, frank sinatra, michael jordan, jimi hendrix, cesar romero, buddha, and anthony michael hall combined. it just wasn't a very satisfying movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AdamLMay 8, 2005
Great! A movie that glorifies the Nazi's ! (Oops, I mean Crusaders...).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MannyC.May 17, 2005
Sheer drivel. Not only was this long winded pile of rubbish so boring it hurts, it made me question if Ridley Scott must have suffered brain damage recently. The blatant anti- religous (especially Catholic) viewpoint of the films many dull Sheer drivel. Not only was this long winded pile of rubbish so boring it hurts, it made me question if Ridley Scott must have suffered brain damage recently. The blatant anti- religous (especially Catholic) viewpoint of the films many dull speeches made me wonder if i had wandered into some bizarro cults indoctrination chamber. Do the world a favour and dont pay to see this. if it makes no money then hopefully directors will feel compelled to make films of at least a little better quality than this dung. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JeromeF.May 9, 2005
The story was uninvolvling. The actors were unengaging. The visuals for unoriginal. What more needs to be said.
0 of 0 users found this helpful